Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Secular Suicide: Will Birth Rates Determine the Victor of the Culture Wars?

I ran across this article in USA Today, by liberal columnist Phillip Longman. We often hear about declining birth rates in secularized Europe. Most such articles and books note that birth rates in the United States have declined much less dramatically and remain above replacement levels. But to Longman the most notable feature of birth rates may be the disparity within the United States.

Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.

Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.

Longman concludes that the disparity will lead to far-reaching changes.

This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.

But even if the secuarlists and the leftists are not bearing many children, might not they influence the children of the religious and conservatives so as to perpetuate their belief systems? Kind of like the borg who reproduce through assimilation. Not according to Longman.

Why couldn't tomorrow's Americans and Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal, religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of '68? The key difference is that during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of society married and had children. Some had more than others, but there was much more conformity in family size between the religious and the secular. Meanwhile, thanks mostly to improvements in social conditions, there is no longer much difference in survival rates for children born into large families and those who have few if any siblings.

Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents' values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.

I am not sure that Longman has effectively countered this point. Afterall, if enough children who are raised in typical conservative families go to college and abandons their religions or adopt a more liberal political ideology, then birth rates will not play king maker in the so-called culture war afterall. While the broader culture of their state or city may be more conservative, the more immediate culture of their college and peer group may challenge their traditional beliefs.

I think, however, that this effect -- though no doubt real in many cases -- will not be sufficient to remedy the disparity in birth rates. Polls show that most evangelicals have attended college, with a quarter obtaining degrees and another quarter obtaining graduate degrees. That is a lot of evangelicals who "survived" college with their religious beliefs intact. That is also a lot of well-educated evangelicals sending their children to college. The caricature of the religious and sheltered child going off to college to face new ideas that they have never encountered does not seem to apply anymore (if it ever really did).

Additionally, enrollment at Christian colleges is surging. From 1994 to 2000, colleges affiliated with the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (which can fairly be described as of a conservative bent) saw their enrollment jump by 71%, or by more than 800,000 students. Other religious schools saw enrollment increase by a less dramatic but still strong 27%. The growth rate at public universities, on the other hand, was around 13%. Thus, more and more children raised in devout homes are choosing to go to Christian colleges. Obviously, Christian students sent to Christian colleges are not in danger of being deconverted by the secularist establishment.

So, while I do not dismiss the possibility of mass "defections" of Christians who go to college, I do think that it is far from inevitable and may be more wishful thinking on the part of secularists than present-day reality. Nevertheless, this does highlight the importance of raising up Christian children not only of good moral character, but also of strong mind.

One consideration that I believe Longman overlooks in his article is his failure to account for immigration. While the U.S. birth rate is near replacement levels, its population is growing. This is mostly due to immigration from predominantly Catholic countries, though a significant portion includes Christians from Korea and Middle Eastern nations. Latino immigrants to this country are largely Catholic, but according to Philip Jenkins in The Next Christendom, their children will be at least 30% evangelical Protestants. Those many who remain Catholic will be more culturally conservative than secularists and leftists, though they may be politically liberal on some important ecomonic issues. Therefore, it does not appear that immigration patterns will prevent the lower birth rate of secularists from eventually decreasing their numbers, though it may counter some of the "conservative" trend of Longman's birth-rate analysis.

This discussion is, of course, speculative. We work with demographics and statistics because we do not know the future. They have their shortcomings and often fail to account for some variables and misjudge others. Still, the case does seem to be a good one that the Christian value on family and children will have a practical affect on American culture and even politics. Already, so-called "Red States" have gained political representation because, in part, of higher birth rates. There are some illustrative comparisons from the 2004 Presidentical Election. In 2004, President Bush carried the 19 states with the highest birth rates while Senator Kerry carried the 16 states with the lowest birth rates. Moreover, President Bush had a 20 point advantage over Senator Kerry among married parents.

The divide is real. Religious Americans, including recent immigrants, are having many more children than their secularist compatriots. But, there appears to be one question whose answer will govern the impact of this fact. Are they going to retain the faith and values of their upbringing in large enough numbers to maintain the advantage the birth rate seems to give to religious Americans? There are some promising indicators, but ultimately the answer rests in the hands of the millions of Christian parents across the country and how effective they are in raising and equipping their children.

Reactions:

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Excellent piece. I would, however, suggest that many of the Christian colleges are Christian in name only. Some of the ELCA sponsored colleges, for example, are teaching a very secularized brand of Christianity which fits in very well with the view of Jesus taught by such ignominious scholars as Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. The late, great Ronald Nash wrote an excellent book on this subject exposing how many of the colleges that call themselves Christian are only vaguely Christian in any orthodox sense of the word.

This is a great piece Chris. I'm baffled though by the "progressive" mindset. If they were truly progressive, wouldn't their ideals be leading to betterment and expansion of society, and not its extinction?

Thank goodness everyone didn't buy the liberal ideas about not having children, or having only one child. I wonder where they will go from here? I sure hope I don't someday hear something to the tune of "since I didn't have any children-and you have four-, you have to impart couple of yours with my ideology so we can keep things even and fair."

What a shocking wake-up call - that a life lived mainly to oneself doesn't have much of a future.

About 6 months ago I was at a funeral (friend's mother) at a small country church. I noticed that I was the only practicing Christian on our pew. I also noticed I was the only one with children on our pew. If someone's philosophy says there's no reason to value life, why have children?

Popular posts from this blog

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated.

In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article. Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I h…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

John Lennox is a wonderful spokesman for Christianity. In many ways, he is the one Christian apologist who has acquired the mantle of C.S. Lewis in the way that he is able to take points that are sometimes difficult for those unfamiliar with thinking about Christianity and reduces them to simple arguments using metaphors and examples that anyone can understand.

Since it is the Christmas season, I thought it worthwhile to point a video by Dr. Lennox entitled "Christmas for Doubters." In the video, he responds to the idea that the early Christians believed in the Virgin Birth because they were too ignorant to understand how babies were conceived. Rather, by comparing the accounts of the birth of Jesus with the birth of John the Baptist, Dr. Lennox shows that those who wrote the Gospels understood that the authors of the Gospels did have an understanding of where babies come from, but that they understood that the births of both Jesus and John the Baptist were outside of ordin…

It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy with the concept of miracles. So should we all be watchful not to believe too quickly because its easy to get caught up in private reasons and ignore reason itself. Thus has more than one intelligent person been taken by both scams and honest mistakes. By the the same token it is equally a danger that one will remain too long in the skeptical place and become overly committed to doubting everything. From that position the circular reasoning of the naturalist seems so reasonable. There’s never been any proof of miracles before so we can’t accept that there is any now. But that’s only because we keep making the same assumption and thus have always dismissed the evidence that was valid. At this point most atheists will interject the ECREE issue (or ECREP—extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or “proof”). That would justify the notion of remaining skeptical about miracle evidence even when its good. The…

Lately, I have been listening to a series of lectures by Hubert Dreyfus, Ph.D., a Philosophy professor at U.C. Berekley, concerning the writings of Soren Kierkegaard. The lecture has been very interesting, and while I think that Professor Dreyfus has some questionable interpretations of the Bible, his discussions have given me a greater understanding of Kierkegaard's view of faith. Most importantly, it has helped me clarify in my own mind the use of the illustration of a Knight of Faith and the example of Abraham and Isaac.

The Two Knights of Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard, the great Danish philosopher of the 19th Century, can be considered the father of modern existentialism. In his work Fear and Trembling, he wrote about the difference between two types of people whom he called the Knight of Infinite Resignation and the Knight of Faith. In Fear and Trembling, , Kierkegaard identifies Abraham as a Knight of Faith. In his lectures, however, I get the sense that Professor Dreyfus, who I ac…

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here.]

Having explained why, as a Christian, I do not hold to what many people (Christian and sceptic) have considered the 'party line' that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, I will now explore this issue from a deeper philosophical perspective.

A Christian (or other religious theist) who accepts a faith/reason disparity will usually do so for religious reasons. His argument that these two aspects must be mutually exclusive (or at least need not have anything to do with each other) will be grounded on positions and presumptions which usually proceed from a devout loyalty to God's status, or from authority of specifically religious leaders, or from the structure of religious ritual, or some combination thereof.

And a sceptic who accepts a faith/reason disparity might do so only because, as far as he can tell, his opposition has chosen that grou…

William Lane Craig remains one of the most erudite and knowledgeable of today's Christian philosophers. His book, Reasonable Faith, has remained one of my favorite Apologetics tools because he lays out many of the Christian claims so clearly and cogently that only the most hardened of skeptics dismisses him or his work as being without weight. Certainly, his writings have led many people to turn their hearts toward Jesus.

We are blessed that Dr. Craig maintains a website also called Reasonable Faith with lots of information that can be accessed free of charge to make a case for Christianity. One of the great features of his website includes a question and answer section where Dr. Craig selects questions that have been addressed to him, and he generally provides really good answers that can help inform all Christians' Apologetics efforts. Unfortunately, this blog has not referenced Dr. Craig's work nearly as often as we ought, but I want to focus on one of the questions …

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

“[What] we have today is worse than ignorance of the Bible. It is contempt for it. Just about anyone who quotes the Bible, let alone says it is the source of his or her values, is essentially regarded as a simpleton who is anti-science, anti-intellectual and sexist.” ~ Dennis Prager, Jewish thinker and nationally syndicated talk show host, from I’m Back, Here’s Where I’ve Been.
There is no question that Christianity in the West is under attack from some in the public square. While Christians are still able to worship as they choose and to follow their faith (as long as they do so in private), one would need to be blind to overlook the effort by some to turn the public perception of Christianity as being backwards, ignorant and responsible for hatred. For example, in May 2011 the Huffington Post, the left-leaning Internet website, published an article entitled If You’re a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong by Cenk Uygur wherein Uygur expressed what I cannot doubt is the view of…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.